IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2345 of 2009()
1. NADARAJAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIVAKARAN NAIR AND ANOTHER
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.TRIPTEN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :23/07/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
CRL. R.P. NO.2345 of 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009
O R D E R
————–
This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl. Appeal No.170 of 2003
confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed
Rs.70,000/- on 1.9.1996 and issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 20.12.2000
for repayment of that amount. Dishonour of that cheque for
insufficiency of funds is proved by Ext.P2 and P3. Service of statutory
notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.1
gave evidence as P.W1 regarding transaction and execution of
cheque. According to the petitioner no such amount was due to
respondent No.1. Petitioner did not prove the circumstances under
which according to him the signed cheque leaf happened to be in the
custody of respondent. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence
of respondent No.1 as P.W.1. Petitioner did not reply to the statutory
notice served on him. Courts below found in favour of due execution
of the cheque. I find no reason to interfere with the conviction of
CRL. R.P. No.2345 of 2009
-: 2 :-
petitioner.
3. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo
simple imprisonment for six months. Petitioner was directed to pay
Rs.70,000/- by way of compensation to respondent No.1 and in default
to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Appellate court
while modifying the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till
rising of the court directed petitioner to pay Rs.80,000/- as
compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for
three months. Having regard to the nature of the offence and amount
involved I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence as
modified, direction for payment of compensation or the default
sentence ordered by the appellate court.
4. Learned counsel requested six months’ time to deposit
compensation. Counsel stated that petitioner is not able to raise the
amount immediately. Considering the circumstances stated by
learned counsel I am inclined to grant time till 30.12.2009 to deposit
the compensation in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court.
Resultantly this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner
is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit compensation in the trail
court as ordered by the appellate court. It is made clear that it shall
CRL. R.P. No.2345 of 2009
-: 3 :-
be sufficient compliance with the direction for deposit of compensation
if petitioner paid the compensation to respondent No.1 through his
counsel in the trial court and respondent No.1 filed a statement in the
trial court through his counsel acknowledging receipt of the
compensation within the said period.
Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31.12.2009 to
receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any, against
petitioner will remain in abeyance.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv